A thoughtful article has appeared in The Guardian. Chris Woodhead, who has been diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease, is reported to have said that he may prefer to commit suicide than die of his illness. Theo Hobson writes that perhaps we need to keep what he calls a ‘taboo’ against suicide – meaning that ‘there ought to be a culture of disapproval at suicide’.
Mr Hobson is worried that a change in the law that made suicide easier, while it might suit the convenience of some people, would create a culture in which others were expected to resort to it rather than look for expensive and time-consuming care when they became seriously or chronically ill. He suggests that ‘a taboo against assisted dying is necessary, so that families do their utmost to care for their suffering members, so that the weakest bodies are valued as much as the healthiest’. He is right, though the risk is not only that families might stop caring. It is also that those in need of care might opt for suicide against their real wishes but because they see themselves as a burden.
‘The law’, Mr Hobson suggests, ‘denotes disapproval, and it is necessary for society to see suicide as wrong’. Referring to a recent spate of suicides among young people in and around Bridgend, he comments that ‘these young people did something that was not just terribly sad but also terribly wrong. They were uttering a great ‘No’ to life that was, it seemed, contagious’. He concludes: ‘A taboo against suicide is a social necessity, like the incest taboo. It is a way of affirming life, to say that it is too precious to be thrown away even in the midst of intense suffering’.
And yet Mr Hobson is no zealous advocate of the sanctity of human life. He appears to believe that the law, which prohibits assistance with suicide, is ‘inhumane’, and he attributes the maintenance of this prohibition to ‘religious believers who preach against assisted suicide’ but who, he believes, are ‘more interested in displaying their brave attachment to principle than in alleviating suffering’. And he concludes his article by saying that ‘my position on assisted suicide is somewhat contradictory. I think we should reform the law, but take care to keep the old taboo in place’.
What an interesting article! Mr Hobson’s apparent belief that opposition to changing the law comes from ‘religious believers’ comes straight out of the pro-euthanasia lobby’s manual. But, that apart, he will have given many readers food for thought by exposing some of the roots of the current controversy over whether assistance with suicide should be legalised. He sees a contradiction in his own position – how to change the law to allow assisted suicide and yet keep in place what he calls the ‘taboo’ against suicide. But, surely, he has answered his own question. As we have seen, he believes that ‘the law denotes disapproval, and it is necessary for society to see suicide as wrong’. His own logic should therefore make plain to him that, if the law were ever to be changed to allow assistance with suicide, the very act of doing so would send out the signal that in some cases suicide was a good thing and thereby lessen society’s perceived disapproval of it. Laws are a powerful means of changing social culture.
We must keep the taboo against suicide
(Image: FreeImages – licence)
